K P ABUBUCKER Vs. G BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is tenant under the respondent in the demised premises. THE respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.334 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Principal District Rent Controller, Madurai Town for eviction of the tenant under two grounds of wilful default and his requirement for own occupation. THE learned Rent Controller allowed the application passing an order of eviction on the ground of personal occupation. He rejected the claim of the landlord as regards wilful default. Both of them preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-judge, Madurai) in R.C.A.No.69 of 1998 and R.C.A.No.4 of 2000. THE learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals confirming the orders of the Rent Controller.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Court below, the tenant has preferred this civil revision petition before this Court, while the landlord has not carried the order of dismissal before this Court. The following are the allegations succinctly found in the petition:- 2.1. The schedule building is a non-residential one which originally belonged to the father of the respondent and from whom the petitioner herein took the property on lease agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.500/- depositing a sum of Rs.7,000/- as advance. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.518 of 1989 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act (in short "the Act") for deposit of rent for every month. It is stated that the respondent herein is running a printing press near Madurai Corporation building. The scheduled premises is required for him to run the said business and hence, the tenant has to be evicted.

(3.) THIS Court is able to find out that other non-residential buildings are not suitable for the respondent to run the printing press.